Re: Virtual Inclusion Summit

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 07:13:58PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
>
> >> It is OK to have an optional meeting in the hope that a video
> >> meeting may have a better chance to keep those who easily become too
> >> aggressive and confrontational in text-only conversation in check
> >> and instead have civilized conversation.
> >>
> >> But I am not sure if it is a good idea to call such a meeting a
> >> "Summit", given that there are those who prefer not to be seen,
> >> heard or recorded how they appear and how they sound in a video
> >> conference.  They would not be able to join the conversation held in
> >> such a "Summit" held only by those who are privileged enough to be
> >> able to attend.
> >
> > I think that this is a very reasonable concern, stated in a very
> > reasonable fashion. Let's call it something else, sure, and avoid
> > recording/publishing the event (as we have done in the past at other
> > in-person events--such as the last Git Merge--which seems like a
> > lifetime ago ;-).)
>
> I am not opposed to recording and publishing for wider dissemination
> of what was said and agreed on among participants, who join with the
> full understanding of how the video meeting will later be consumed.
>
> What I am hesitant to see is that such an opt-in meeting becomes
> "you got a chance to attend and have your voice heard---if you
> didn't come, that was your choice, and whatever objection you give
> after it does not count" summit.

Ah, thanks for your clarification (and sorry for the misunderstanding).
I figure that any synchronous discussion should augment the on-list
discussion, not replace it.

Thanks,
Taylor